ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2013

October 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49S02-1302-CT-89
Civil tort. Holds Kesling’s fraud claim survives summary judgment but her deception claims do not. Advertising a car as “sporty car at a great value price” is not a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But stating that a car “would just need a tune-up,” in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that it had far more serious problems, does represent a fact and therefore may be the basis of a fraud claim when a seller gives it as a knowingly incomplete answer to a buyer’s specific question.

Wednesday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Danner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
53A04-1206-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Grants rehearing after originally dismissing appeal and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuchaes’ motion to continue; in certain evidentiary rulings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to amend the pleadings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to reopen; and in the award of attorneys fees.

Christopher Peelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1301-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felonies dealing in methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Jose A. Bonilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony child molestation conviction.

Kendrick Atkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1303-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

Marcus Anthony Johnson Revocable Trust and The Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals Division No. 1 v. Westchester Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1302-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Westchester Estate Homeowners Association and other appellees and the denial of summary judgment in favor of the trust and board of zoning appeals regarding a zoning variance. 

Lawrence Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction to serve the remainder of Harris’ sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT